SHIV PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ, petitioner seeks to challenge the order of termination of his employment as a temp rary Lower Division Clerk. He was employed in connection with famine Relief work in Jodhpur District of the Stat, of Rajsathan. The petitioner was appointed on a purely temporary basis as Lower Division Clerk and was posted at Onion by the order of the Collector, Jodhpur, dated January 16, 1970. One of the conditions of the temporary employment of the petitioner was that this temporary service would be liable to be terminated at any time without any notice and without assigning any reason. The petitioner continued to hold the post of a Lower Davison Clerk in a purely temporary capacity. Until his service was terminated by the order of the Collector, Jodhpur, dated March 15, 1971. On May 15, 1971 the Tehsildar, Osian conveyed to the petitioner that his service was terminated and he was relieved of the charge he id by him in pursuance of the order of the Collector, Jodhpur, dated March 11, 1971 It is not in dispute that the appointment of the petitioner was made on a purely temporary basis in connection with the famine Relief work in some Tehsils of Jodhpur District. The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation to the Collector, Jodhpur, but on March 26, 1971 and also met the Collector, Jodhpur, personally in July or August 1971 He also applied for fresh employment to the Collector, Jodhpur, but nothing was done. The petitioner presented this writ petition in this Court on January 17, 1973.

(2.) ONE of the contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner was that the service of the petitioner was terminated by way of retrenchment on account of abolition of the posts which came into existence due to famine relief operations but the same could not have been done while persons junior to him where retained in service. Learned Counsel argued that the termination of the service of the petitioner by way of retrenchment while retaining persons junior to him in service was volatile of the principle of equality before law in matter of employment, which is enshrined in Article 16 of the Constitution. The petitioner referred to cases of two other persons, who, according to him, were similarly employed, namely, Daulal and Ghisoo Singh. According to the petitioner, both these respondents were appointed in a similar manner as the petitioner, in purely temporary capacity in connection with the famine relief operations, after the petitioner was so employed by the order of the Collector, Jodhpur, dated January 16, 1970 and the service of the petitioner should not have been terminated so long as the aforesaid two respondents continued to remain in service.

(3.) AS regards Ghisoo Singh respondent, there is no doubt that he was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk on a purely temporary basis by an order dated January 28, 1970, which was in identical terms as the order issued in respect of the petitioner He was, therefore, junior to the petitioner in the cadre of Lower Division Clerks appointed in purely temporary capacity in connection with the Famine Relief Operations The respondents have produced the service record including service book of Ghisoo Singh respondent and a perusal thereof shows that Ghisoo Singh was transferred from the post of Fodder Depot Clerk to the Treasury Office, jodhpur, by the order of the Collector, Jodhpur, dated February 25, 1970 and he actually joined the Treasury Office, Jodhpur as a Lower Division Clerk on March 5, 1970. Thereafter he was again transferred to the Government Press, Jodhpur, on April 17, 1971 and has also been confirmed on the post of Lower Division Clerk in the Government Press with effect from April 7, 1971. A letter dated March 19, 1970, written to the Superintendent, Government Press Jodhpur, and which is borne on the service record of Ghisoo Singh respondent shows that he had passed the typing test at the time when he was appointed in the Treasury Department. It appears that the Collector, Jodhpur had transferred Ghisoo Singh respondent to the Trersury Office, Jodhpur on his passing typing test. Ghisoo Singh respondent was retained in service while the service of the petitioner was terminated on the abolition of the posts created in connection with the Famine Relief Operation on the ground that the service of Ghisoo Singh already stood transferred to a permanent department, namely the Treasury Office, Jodhpur, before the crucial date, namely March 15, 1971. Thus, it is apparent that the Collector, Jodhpur, had formulated proper principles on the basis of which retrenchment was carried out at retrenchment time and persons who had passed the typing test prior to March 15, 1971 were retained in service, including Ghisoo Singh respondent, while service of the other Lower Division Clerks employed on purely temporary basis in connection with the Famine Relief work were terminated. The petitioner clearlyfell in last mentioned category and as such his service also came to be terminated by way of retrenchment, with the abolition of the temporary posts which were created in connection with the Famine Relief Operation in Jodhpur District, A similar criteria, adopted while terminating the service of temporary employees by way of retrenchment, was held to be valid by this Court in Danmal v. State S.B. Civil Writ No. 346/1976, decided on October 4, 1974. That writ petition was field by a Lower Division Clerk who was similarly appointed on purely temporary basis during the Famine Relief Operations and whose services were similarly terminated on the closure of such operations. I am in agreement with the reasons given by my brother Modi J in holding that the guarantee of equality of opportunity was not violated when the, appointing authority had formulated proper principles for termination of the service of temporary employees by way of retrenchment, Submissions made in this writ petition are similar to those advanced in Danmal's case and for the reasons given in the order passed in Danmal's case, I hold that the order of termination of service of the petitioner does not suffer from the vice of discrimination.